For flying from Charlottesville, VA to Dallas-Forth Worth the cheapest round trip I have found has a listed price of $268 (with taxes it's $310). I can get this two ways, according to Kayak. I can either fly Delta Airlines and connect through Atlanta, or I can fly United Airlines and connect through Dulles (Washington, D.C.). Now here's the kicker: if I fly directly to DFW from Dulles, the round trip now costs $100 more. So I'm actually paying less money to take more flights, and not only that, I'm paying less money to take the same flight as I otherwise would have, simply by starting in a different location.
The only explanation seems to be competition: the price United is offering is set by the price Delta has offered. It would be even cheaper to fly to DFW directly from Atlanta, but of course that's not cheaper for me, since I can't drive that far. On the other hand, if you live in D.C. and need to fly to DFW, and if you have any friends near Charlottesville, you might consider hitching a ride down here only so you can fly back to D.C. before going to DFW: you'll be saving money in the process!
By the way, if anyone is free to give me a ride to the Charlottesville airport on July 28...I'd appreciate it.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Bottom-up development: a case study from India
Via Alex Tabarrok: there is an interesting story at the NYT about India's city of Gurgaon, a city with more or less no local government.
Read the rest of Tabarrok's post here. Read the NYT article here. Whatever your assessment, this makes a great modern day case study in unplanned economic development.Gurgaon was widely regarded as an economic wasteland. In 1979, the state of Haryana created Gurgaon by dividing a longstanding political district on the outskirts of New Delhi. One half would revolve around the city of Faridabad, which had an active municipal government, direct rail access to the capital, fertile farmland and a strong industrial base. The other half, Gurgaon, had rocky soil, no local government, no railway link and almost no industrial base.
As an economic competition, it seemed an unfair fight. And it has been: Gurgaon has won, easily. Faridabad has struggled to catch India’s modernization wave, while Gurgaon’s disadvantages turned out to be advantages, none more important, initially, than the absence of a districtwide government, which meant less red tape capable of choking development.
Gurgaon has no publicly provided “functioning citywide sewer or drainage system; reliable electricity or water; public sidewalks, adequate parking, decent roads or any citywide system of public transportation.” Yet Gurgaon is a magnet for “India’s best-educated, English-speaking young professionals,” it has 26 shopping malls, seven golf courses, apartment towers, a sports stadium, five-star hotels and “a futuristic commercial hub called Cyber City [that] houses many of the world’s most respected corporations.” According to one survey, Gurgaon is India’s best city to work and live. So how does Gurgaon thrive? It thrives because in the absence of government the private sector has stepped in to provide transportation, utilities, security and more:
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
OK, so I just have to post another one...
This guy is great.
This would be a great video for discussion among Christian intellectuals. Can stories be dangerous? Should we be suspicious of stories? Are we comfortable with being "agnostic"? Are we OK with messes? All these questions seems to get right at the heart of the relationship between faith and reason.
It's good to pay attention to economists.
Tyler Cowen's TEDx talk
I found this really fascinating. Also, I confess I enjoyed the end. "We need a greater reverence for science." I just wish I knew a way to actually make that happen.
Planning and competition
Kevin Drum makes what in my mind is a very basic error regarding economics. In critiquing David Brooks' assessment of health care, he says the following:
What about the interstate highway system? Or the Catholic Church? In both of these cases, all we can say is that a top-down approach has resulted in something massive; I think it's far from evident that the result in either case has been optimal. And if Drum wants to use a religious example like the authority of the pope, I dare him to apply his principles equally and recommend we have a State-sponsored Church. Those who recommend we nationalize health care (or even health insurance) are saying nothing less presumptuous than those who advocate a State-sponsored religion (which would, I wager, be too European even for liberals).
Planning plus competition equals unfair competition. As long as the government has certain arbitrary powers over the allotment of resources, those who have the ear of government will be able to secure their own well-being without playing according to the rules. It might sound reasonable to suggest that "somewhere in between" is the wisest approach. But when we strip the word "planning" of its outward form and call it what it is--arbitrary power--we see that no amount of it is justified.
Top-down control has never worked in all of human history? Seriously? Is the Catholic Church a successful endeavor? How about the U.S. Army? Or the interstate highway system? Or every corporation in America?Even as large as the U. S. Army or any major corporation may be, each comprises a relatively small group of people relative to the society at large. As many different objectives as a large corporation may have, it doesn't even come close to the vast number of goals and desires distributed among a whole country. In terms of economic theory, is a very basic distinction. A large corporation may be structured in a top-down manner--and it probably should be--but it is a gross non sequitur to infer that an entire industry, e.g. health care, should be forced into a single top-down enterprise.
What about the interstate highway system? Or the Catholic Church? In both of these cases, all we can say is that a top-down approach has resulted in something massive; I think it's far from evident that the result in either case has been optimal. And if Drum wants to use a religious example like the authority of the pope, I dare him to apply his principles equally and recommend we have a State-sponsored Church. Those who recommend we nationalize health care (or even health insurance) are saying nothing less presumptuous than those who advocate a State-sponsored religion (which would, I wager, be too European even for liberals).
Planning plus competition equals unfair competition. As long as the government has certain arbitrary powers over the allotment of resources, those who have the ear of government will be able to secure their own well-being without playing according to the rules. It might sound reasonable to suggest that "somewhere in between" is the wisest approach. But when we strip the word "planning" of its outward form and call it what it is--arbitrary power--we see that no amount of it is justified.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Killer Regulations
Government regulations apparently required police to abstain from saving a man's life in California:
Most astonishing quote: "Well, if I was off duty I know what I would do, but...[if I were on duty] I'd have to stay within the policies and procedures..." This is a police officer's response to what he would do if a child were drowning off shore.
The fear of litigation is a deadly poison to society.
Most astonishing quote: "Well, if I was off duty I know what I would do, but...[if I were on duty] I'd have to stay within the policies and procedures..." This is a police officer's response to what he would do if a child were drowning off shore.
The fear of litigation is a deadly poison to society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)